L^< »«^!f . '. at ' at mm^ 5 V Z- Vio<\ ^^^ f<^fiiony or truly diijine and majefiic appearance of Godr ibid. Before we are told, the form of God be- longs to God only ; and the fafhion of a man, is that by which he is known to be a man. And Jefus Chrifl was not only a man in appearance but in reality, having the fame common nature, diftinguiflied by the fame fpecific difference ! Again fais the Bifliop. ** fefus Chrifl emptied himjelf of what ? not of his being or nature, but of the glories and majefty belonging to him!' p. 42. And, " T^he 'very Lord of life, upholding all things by the word of his power, was fu~ perior to the necefjity of human nature, and fubjecl to death only becaife he chcfe to die** p. 49. *' It was humility therefore to become man. After he was man, it was humility to die!' ib. Can any rational fpirit go over thefe re- prefentations without fome difgull: ? The Legerdemain of a Juggler, the Magic of a Sorcerer, [ '4 ] Sorcerer, could not more amaze and aftonifli ! nor lefs enlighten and inform the human mind. And thcfe things drop from the fame pen, that fais, " 'Juji conceptions of God are the foundation of all religion^ ** And this juft conception of God is the right rule to form our judgments by in all particular matters of religion^ and the only thing 'which can fe cure us from Atheifm and Superftition. T^hat the Gojpel was given^ not to exclude^ but to ajjiji the exercije of re af on'' But the Bifhop is yet more extravagant if poffible. *' Something of this fort feems to be inti- mated in Scripture. 'The fall of tnan was the lofs of fo many JuhjeBs to the Chriji^ their na- tural Lord, under God, in 'virtue of his having created them.'' p. 83. Here is the charadler of creator affixed to Chrift, and of foveieign too, in vertue of his having created. How this Lcrdfiip^ ground- ed on creation, can be faid to be under God, is not eafy to conceive or imagine. Is not this to take from God thofe very excellen-- cies and perfections, which are the true foundation of all religion? And how was Jefus the natural Lord of men by creation, and they his fubjeds, with another God, to whom this univerfal creator himfclf was JAibordinate ? Pr. Sherlock fomewbat varies, « GQd [ 15] " God put all things immediately under him^ making him head ever ally and ccnfequentty entitled him to that icorjkip and tQ thoje honour s^ ivhich ivere not before paid him, Chrifl Jefus was indeed Juhfervient to the father in the creation of the worlds^ p. ^i^. I have faid, the Do(5tor d liters from the Bifhop, and with reafon have I faid it : for though they here agree in faying, that Chrifi: was under God 2S\^ fuhfervient to the father in creating : yet, they widely difagree in affirming the Creator, the natural Lord of the creation, who by man's fall loft fo many fubjedts, is, in confequence of being made head over all, entitled to that worfhip, and to thofe honours which were never before paid him. At leaft, if here be no contra- didion, there is confulion : for it will not be eafy to form any notion of a father or a God, that was not the creator and natural Lord, only looking on^ i. e. in vertue of his not ha- ving created ! And if the father be the natural Lord becaufe he v/as fuperior to the creator, and the Creator was indeed fubfervient to the father in the creation of the worlds ; it will then be evident, as far as language can make it fo, that the terms, under God and fubfer^ inent to the father ^ and Gods putting all things immediately under hiniy and making hi?n head over ally do import and exprefsly denote, an inequality between God the father and the creator. t i6 ] creator. And that confequently, there is dependence and derivation. No J fais the Bifhop. «' The glories of 7iatiire^ a7id the glories of office are very different and diflinSl glories, i'he apojlle confders fefus Chrifl as the fame perfon in all his different fates ^ of glory ^ hu- mility , and exaltation : the fame nature which be had being in the form of Gody the fame he had in his fate of humiliation^ and now has in his ft ate of exaltation. The exaltation of any perfon does 7iot confft in a change of nature y or natural power s^ but in acquired honours a7id authority. When a 7nan is raifed to be a King^ he is fill a man, without increafe or di7}ii7JUtion, though he receives 7iew honours and new authority." p. 53, 54. But what fais the Do6lor ? *' Thus 7?mch we colleB from the apofle*s reafo72ing j and difcern plainly ; that the pre- eminence ofChrift as head of the church, is C07i7ieBed a7id related to his pre'e77ii7ie7ice as head of the creation'' p. 84. We have her^ in both fuch an aflbciation of ideas, as feems to refemble the refveries of an Enthufiaft, who is tranfported with illuminations and vilions! and who ihook hands, before he afcended thefe heights, with reafon and common fenfe, fcorning to be confined to any of the laws of nature. This t 17 ] This diftlndion of the glories of nature and office, is to effed miraculous things f and will give us a key to enter the cham- bers of the marvellous. But there is fome- thing unlucky, in the illuftratlon, of a man raifed to be a King. For though he has no change made thereby, in his natural povv'ers i yet, there is a confeffed acquifition of honour and authority. He receives new honour and new authority. And they who confer it, the people, are fuppofed the foun- tain of power. From them he derives his authority. But in the cafe before us, Jefus Chrifl is not only faid to be equal with God, but to be God. " Forafmuch as the form of God belongs to God only." p. 34. And not only fo, '' but zmder the Old Teji anient he ap* peared in the real majejly of his father.'' ibid^ We might therefore afk, what poffible change of condition and flate, he could be liable unto ? Is it fuppofeable, that God the father could have palled through the ftates of glory, humiliation, and exaltation ? Or have become a man, not only in appearance, but in reality, having the fame common nature ? Will not the Dodor fay, this would be blafphemy to affirm of the one God the father ? Then we may affirm it blafphemy, to fay this of the creator of all things. Fof he who made the worlds, and who is not only equal with God^ but God, could not C poffibly [ i8 ] poflibly fuftain any alterations 5 unlefs he could ceafe to be, what in nature he im- mutably and eternally is. And an acqui- lition of honours and authority, cannot be fuppofed of the creator of all things. Befides, we f]:iall find the Biihop con- fefling, that hjs Chrift was abfolutely in- capable of the inconveniences and infirmi- ties of human nature; and confequently, the whole of his emptying of himfelf, was no fuch thing as any degree of emptying ; but he remained the fame almighty, and all- perfedt being he ever was 1 and though in reality a man, yet he was no wav affected with the frailties of humanity : *' For the *very Lord of life, upholding all things by the 'word of his power ^ was fiiperior to the fiecejjity of human nature^ and juhjeSl to deaths only be- caufe he chofe to die'' p. 49. Thus the Bifliop has reprefented the whole of the tranfmigration of the God, into no more than the appearance of a change ; and has, at one fmgle flroke, dafhed and blotted out the whole of the fufferines and hunjiliations of Jefus Chriil:. — There is another abfurdity, among a thoufand, that crowd around the Bifhop's interpretations, which fliould by no means be omitted, and that is, '■^ ne fall of man was the lofs of fo many fubjeBs to the Chf'i/i, their natural Lord, under God, in virtue oj his having created theniT p. 83. And yet, *'. under [ 19 ] " under the OJdTeJiament he appeared in the real majefty of his father.'' p. 34. The Bifhop has made him ample amends for his original lofs, for he has given him the pofTeffion of the real majefty of his fa- ther, antecedently to his changing his glo- rious for an inglorious condition : or, before " his having the fafhion of a man, which de- notes thofe proper and diftinguijljing chara5iers which belong to a man as Juch, by which he is known to be a man, and not any other kind of being J' p. 41. So that we have more of the marvellous than might at firft be imagined, for belides the creator's diverting himfelf of his glory and majefty as the creator of all things, taking this fafhion of a man, he diverted himfelf alfo of that real majefty of his father, in which he had appeared under the Old Teftament ! How he came by that real majefty of his father, I do not re- member the Bijhop has told us. But I fhould imagine, that he had, in his own con- ceptions, inverted Jefus Chrift with thefe fu- preme honours, in order to compenfate the lofs he had furtained, as creator, by the fall of man, v/ho had revolted thereby from their fubjedtion to their natural Lord, who was fo in virtue of his having created them. But then, I have thus quite loft all idea of the father. He becomes abforbed in the perfon of Chrift, who appeared under the C 2 ' Old [ 20 ] Old Teftament in the real majefty of the father. — Well ; grant that during this dif- penfation there was no other God but Jefus Chrift the creator and natural Lord, wholly poffelTed of the real majefty of the father : how comes it to pafs, the Old Teftament writings never take the leaft notice of this majefty of Jefus Chrift? And why have none of the Evangelifts ever mentioned any thing like it ? Three of them have ufed no phrafe that would indulge fuch a wanton imagina- tion. Of which we are abfolutely affured. And though 'Jchn has fome phrafes which are expreffive of the dignity of our Lord's miffion and chara6ler j yet they are far from admitting any fuch conflrudlionj in a careful view of them. We own, he does, in his in- trodudion, make mention of the creative wif- dom and power, under the term, word. But this was a familiar term among the Jews, and underftood by them to mean no- thing more nor lefs, than the authority and energy of God. And fo the ivord of the Lord gave authority to the prophets of old. It was but natural to St. 'John, who had con- tinued in Judea till about the beginning of the Jewifti wars, when he was writing the life of Chrift, to ufe a phrafe fo common among the Jev/s, to denote the divine mif- (ion of Jefus, when he fais, the word ivas made Jlejh^ and dwelt amo?ig tis. i. e. there was all the poftible evidence given of the divine [ 2« ] divine miflion of Jefus. And fuch were the communications of light, wifdom and know- ledge, that he had the fpirit given him with' out jueafure. So that the Evangelifl repre- fents him as far fuperior to all the prophets : for Jefus could fay of himfelf, that no man has afcended tip i?2to heaven, but he who came down from heaven, even the fin of man who is in heaven. And when the Jev/s ajfk him, whether he was greater than their fa- ther Abrahafu ? He replies, before Abraham was, I am. Thus plainly aflerting his being of fuperior importance, in the fyftem, to Abraham. And he pleads with God, in his prayer, that he would confer that glory upon him, which he had with him, in his defign and purpofe before the world was. — Many other phrafes are peculiar to St. fohn, which have refpeit to the divine miffion of Jefus: but which he has abundantly made plain, by giving us thofe declarations which our Lord makes of his deriving all his wifdom, and power, and dignity from the father. Exprefsly owning his dependence on him, for all his fignificance and importance to man- kind. The apoftles muft therefore be underflood in conformity and agreement with thefe Gof- pel reprefentations. And when they fpeak of God's having created all things by Jefus Chrift, they can have no fort of allufion to the origination of the world j but to a new creation. [ 22 ] creation, in which he is made head of all principality, power, and dominion. This eafy, familiar, plain, and confiftent interpretation, it feems will not do j and yet we have feen, The Doctor owning, *' Tte God put all things imv^ediately un- der him, making him head over ally and confe- qiiently entitled him to that worjhip, and to thoje honours J which were not before paid him.'* P- SS' In our fenfe of Scripture, this comes nearer to the truth of the cafe; and is a frank and full acknowledgment of his fubordinacy and de- pendency on God. It will prove, he is not God : has no equality with the Father: and is under him as a minifter, whom he has pleafed to honour and diftinguilh becaufe of hi§ obedience. And indeed the apoftle has fhewn, thai; though God has highly ex- alted him, and given him a name above every name ; that at the name of jejus every knee Jhould bow, and every tongue confefs him Lord — — yet this is to the glory of God the Fa- ther, But how fliall we be able to underftand this exaltation of Jefus Chriil:, which rifes no higher, at its utmoft, than that of his being Lord: and does not ultimately centre in him neither, but in the glory of God the Father 1 This can never coniift with his having been the natural Lord of the world, as the Creator of '[ 23 ] of all things, and as having appeared in the real majefty of the Father under the Old Te- flament difpenfation. We may reafonably afk, what' now becomes of the Bifhop's di- ftindion of nature and office, by which he would artfully gain upon his audience, and divert from the light of evidence. What, I fay, becomes of his diftinction ? Will the Bifhop prefume to fay, that the exaltation of Jefus is either fuperior, or even equal to his glory and dignity as natural Lord from crea- tion, or as having appeared in the real majef- ty of the Father ? His threefold diftindion does him no kind of fervice : for his *' three Jiates of dignity, of humiliation, and of exal- tation, 'which, he fays, makes all the difficulty vanijh,'' p. 12. will avail him of no kind of advantage j but is a whimfy, that may well be put among the creatures of a fertile and ungoverned imagination. But the Bifhop has been accuftomed to deal in fophifms, more than in the rules of fober andjuftreafonings. Witnefs his controverfy with Hoadley. In the Biihop's fcheme, there is a view had to a vicarious facrifice, a proper and real propitiation, a reconciliation of God. " For it pleafed the Father, that in him fould allfulnefs duelh, and having made peace by the blood of his crofs, by him to reconcile all things to himjelf. The fcheme of thought which runs through this paffage of fcripture^ feems to be this -, that as Qhrijl was the head of [ 24 ] of the creation^ and made all things, fo ijohen God thought jit to rejlore the ivorld from fin, it pleafed him that Cbriji fiould be the head alfo of this new work, the firjhborn from the dead himfelf and the giver of life to every be- liever : for this purpofe he made peace by the blood of his crofs^ and reconciled all things to Cod, that in all things he might have the prC' eminence, 'Thus much we colleB from the apo- Jlle's reafoning', and difcer?! plainly, that the fre-eminence of Chrift, as head of the Church, is conneBed and related to his pre eminence as head of the creation'' p. 84. But what fais Dodor Sherlock ? ** Natural religion is the foundation upon which revelation [lands ; and therefore revela- tion can never fiiperjede natural religion, with- cut defroying itfelf" p. 143. ** Ihe Gofpel was given not to exclude, but to ajfift the exercife of reafonJ' p. 153. " l-he Gofpel has all the perfcBion requifite in a law defigned for the government and in- jlruBion of rational creatures,'' p. 156. Thefe feveral clear and ftrong propolitlons of the Dodlor's, will allow and countenance our reafoning on the above obfervation and interpretation of the Bifhop. — And we aik him thefe queftions. How could it pleafe the Father, that in Jefus Chrilt iliould all fulnefs dwell, in con- fequence of his having made peace by the blood of his crofs, when there could be no- thing [ 25 ] thing real in his humiliation or fufFerings, " for this 'uery Lord of life, upholding all thi?ig5 by the word of his poiver, was fuperior to the Tiecef/ity of human 72attire^ and fubjeSi to death only becaufe he chofe to die." p. 49. Is there any thing in the mere appearance to propitiate an offended Deity ? Or, how fhall we confider it as the pleafure of the father, that in Chrifl: all fulnefs fhould dwell, in con- fequence of his fufFerings, when he had, un- der the Old Teftament, appeared in the real majefly of the father ? Should we not rather conclude, with Muggleton, *' that when y-t^